Is the WC 51 overperforming ?

Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2020, 09:08 AMSerrith

So first I do agree that "micro" light vehicles have some... interesting characteristics, the only exception being perhaps the UC since its received the most recent reworks.

Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2020, 19:50 PMLago

The WC51 should lose artillery and Mark Target. It's an excellent early game unit that doesn't need these incongruous abilities bolted onto it in the name of 'late game relevance.'

Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2020, 12:15 PMJohnSmith

It's easier to just refer to the unit itself.

Because micro light vehicles; that's confusing for the sake of confusing and adds another layer of characteristics which is not needed for the game or discussions. There is no need to attempt to categorise the light vehicles into smaller subsets. It'll go crazy and we'd end up with a category micro-light but player-micro-heavy vehicles doctorinal transport self-repair category and even more and as you cited some exceptions too. Also a WC51 cannot be categorised with an M20 or a 222. To make things worse, we could even start categorising infantry like Shocks and Pgrens with CQB and other CQC units.

Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2020, 15:38 PMHannibal

All definitions are arbitrary. Units are just grouped by common traits that many of the community deem to be important. Brushing a category of like this makes no sense, since the category can make sense in context. Obviously it does not mean that creating more categories is benefitial, but again, context matters.
Those "micro lights" or "super lights" share a quite important trait: They are decently countered by small arms fire. If this is deemed important for the discussion, categorizing them makes sense. A T70 would be closer to mediums in that regard than to the M3, UC or WC51. So talking about "LVs" could just create more confusion.

Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2020, 13:53 PMCODGUY

200 MP + 45 munitions vs 210 MP. No, the WC51 is NOT more expensive than the Kubelwagon.

Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2020, 13:23 PMA table

Then it only has ''Step on it!'' in the lategame where it falls into almost complete uselessness. Atleast the Kubel has maphack to be usefull in the late game.

Changing arty to a mortar barrage/smoke barrage would vastly reduce the power but still give it something for the lategame. Not sure what to do with mark target, if it needs it.

Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2020, 18:08 PMVipper

Let me try to explain this to you once more.

M4 HE has the best AI round than any medium tank. 76mm Sherman having inferior AI gun than M4 HE does not mean much.

Jackson is a TD and has better AT than all medium tank. 76mm Sherman have inferior AT gun than
Jackson does not mean much.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 05:48 AMSumi

Valid points except your comparison scale. M4 HE has an AOE of 4 as compared to 2 of 76mm and that is a big ,a very big difference. Now since you mention that 76mm has better at it has a far pen of 165 with HVAP rounds so it is not supposed to penetrate(RNG Stuff) pz4 at max range (40) because the frontal armor of pz4 is 180. So here you have a 76mm which can barely go toe to toe with a 0 vet pz4(vet 2 increased armor) hence concluding it is not that great in AT department and lies in almost the same category as M4A3.

Jackons has 60 range 220 pen while the 76 mm has 40 range 165 pen again massive difference without adding the AP rounds of the Jackson. Jackson is a pure AT unit while the 76mm is an average AI unit.

This explains that 76mm does not even fill the shoes of any of these units and hence it is not used much.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 05:22 AMthedarkarmadillo

Could you make mark target a garrison bonus perhaps? The wc51 can mark a target if garrisoned with a squad? Be a shame to lose the mark target if only because it's the best designed "mark target" type ability around as it helps tame the RNG instead of doubling down on it. Makes the target weaker instead of the counters stronger.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 05:18 AMthedarkarmadillo

Except that it is. 45mu> 10mp.

The only direct and stable conversion we have left is the stuka resupply drop thing in close air and luftwaffe supply which can give 50 fuel or 150mu for 200mp which means that 50fu=200mp or 4 fu=1mp (1mp= 1/4fu and that 150mu=200mp or 3mu = 4mp (mp= 3/4mu)

So 45mu= ABOUT 34mp. Meaning 200mp+45mu = about 234mp which is greater than 210mp feel free to dispute the math, but much like me math doesn't give 2/3 of a fuck about your opinion on the matter as facts are facts and math isn't negotiable.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 05:59 AMthedarkarmadillo

What he's saying is comparing anything to the literal best of both classes means little in the means of comparison. One could say that the Puma has less armour than The JT and less AOE than a Sturmtiger and it would sound equally as stupid because these are as good at those traits as a unit can be. There isn't a usf vehicle with better AT than a Jackson and there isn't a medium tank with better AI than an M4 Sherman so any and all medium tanks will fall into the worse than both of those at their given roles category. Use comparable units not the top of the line.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 09:50 AMHannibal

Not that I disagree with your point, but maybe check that math again because you switched numbers.
45 mun is 60 MP in that conversion making the WC51 260 MP.

We can also use other (rough) conversions, such as standard mines killing 2 models maximum (~50-60 MP). This gives an approximate conversion of 1 MP being worth 0,5-0,6 mun.


The WC51 is quite a niche unit though. As already said, I don't know if anyone at a semi serious level plays this unit outside of 1v1. Like most of those super light vehicles though, they need their space and they don't get much in team games. But maybe that's a plus for balancing it if we don't have to take care of larger game modes.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 15:54 PMelchino7

Check the math.

While i can't find any source, i remember that Relic valued mp/muni/fuel at a ratio of 1:3:5
It's not that resource conversions work that way, it might had been how xp value or something was assigned.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 18:25 PMthedarkarmadillo

.... But is it worth less than a kuble with the munitions upgrade? Certainly not. ...

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 18:38 PMVipper

The 1:3:5 conversation is correct and still applies.

When is calculating the cost of the WC51 one has to keep in mind that is also comes with a crew that can be used to repair vehicles. The cost of the crew alone is something like 170 mp so direct comparison with light vehicles from other faction can be misleading.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 18:38 PMVipper

The cost of the crew alone is something like 170 mp so direct comparison with light vehicles from other faction can be misleading.

Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 21:30 PMKatitof

Using that as an argument is utter bullshit.

You do not have shermans costing 600mp because they have crew.

Jump back to quoted post8 Aug 2020, 01:43 AMachpawel

And that is why they are so difficult to balance. The crew argument is absolutely valid.